(Original post by chumaniward)
i presume youve never had an ounce to drink then?

I never said that, why would you think that? Of course I've drank alcohol in the past. I've been drunk, made a fool of myself and regretted it. I don't like the taste of alcohol personally. I haven't drank any for a long time. I just look around and think the world would be better of without it because it causes so many social problems.

(Original post by zimbo97)
So democracy isn't a human right? Stupid people should not be allowed to vote...maybe really intelligent people should get 2 or 3 votes? Depending on their IQ ofc.
I'm sorry but seriously, that is ludicrous.

Stopping someone for voting because of what you perceive to be false views on Thatcher would cover upwards of a third of the electorate...

Also don't you think it's a bit unfair that there would be a strong correlation between people who have money and received a good education and those who were very poor and so had to go to the local comp?

I mean I hope you realise that these views are crazier than any of the kinda things the Tea Party/Sarah Palin would come up with.

I never said stupid people shouldn't vote. When I said a 'basic IQ test', I mean extremely basic - ensuring people have the basic knowledge to make an informed choice about who to vote for. I would never call anyone 'stupid' anyways. Yes, there are varying degrees of intelligence, but let's say, for example, a person with learning disabilities, this person should have a basic education enough to be able to make an informed decision about who to vote for and what each party offers them.

As for the false views on Thatcher, I think you misunderstood me. The person who was interviewed had only second hand knowledge on what Thatchers ruling was like. This person was very pro-labour, and admitted to having very little political knowledge other than what their parents had passed down - which was obviously a very biased view. I'm using this as an example as to why people should be given politics lessons - at least the basics so they know what party offers them what they want etc.

Money has nothing to do with it. People in this country are entitled to a free education. Yes, some places have better free education than others, but this doesn't change the fact that people who have the motivation to learn, can.

(Original post by SBKA)
I don't believe Afghanistan was a 'success', wars very rarely are. I also don't believe it was the massive failure that many seem desperate to make it out to be.

ISIS are not exactly respecting Iraq's sovereignty at the moment, and Iraq would welcome further intervention from forces such as the Britain and the US. I am not claiming that the war would be easy, far from it, but what is the alternative?

Carry on with assisting Iraq through training troops and airstrikes, but not full scale deployment of troops.

(Original post by Asklepios)
Just because my view is unpopular doesn't mean it's nonsense, as I have backed it up. I know this is very controversial, but that's the point of this thread, no? And how does being in medical school make any difference, am I not able to hold any views?

The medical definition of "disease" is as follows: "Deviation from, or disruption to, the normal function of any body part, tissue or organ" (from Medical Dictionary). Homosexuality does not satisfy any of the criteria stated in the definition of "disease", and so cannot be pathological.

Being a medical student means that you're expected to have knowledge of what constitutes a medical problem and what doesn't. Just as it would be ridiculous for me, an astrophysics student, to post on a public forum telling people that I sincerely believed that the Sun was actually an alien spaceship, it's ridiculous for you to say that a particular sexual orientation is a disease and expect people to take you seriously.

(Original post by zimbo97)
Carry on with assisting Iraq through training troops and airstrikes, but not full scale deployment of troops.

Why is it the West's job to intervene anyway?

It is not our job, but we do have the resources that are required. Who else is capable of helping? I agree with you that it would preferable if Iraq led the way in terms of a ground offensive, but at this current stage they are not up to the job and every day we delay more innocent people are killed and ISIS get stronger.

I hope that I am proven wrong and that western countries will not need to put boots on the ground.

(Original post by Blazar)
The medical definition of "disease" is as follows: "Deviation from, or disruption to, the normal function of any body part, tissue or organ" (from Medical Dictionary). Homosexuality does not satisfy any of the criteria stated in the definition of "disease", and so cannot be pathological.

If the normal function of the limbic system is to 'find the opposite gender attractive in order to facilitate sexual reproduction,' then surely homosexuality is a disruption to this function?

Being a medical student means that you're expected to have knowledge of what constitutes a medical problem and what doesn't. Just as it would be ridiculous for me, an astrophysics student, to post on a public forum telling people that I sincerely believed that the Sun was actually an alien spaceship, it's ridiculous for you to say that a particular sexual orientation is a disease and expect people to take you seriously.

It is my carefully considered viewpoint. However, it isn't officially classified as a disease any more, and I wouldn't let my viewpoint affect my practice. Even if it was recognised as a disease, there is no significant associated morbidity (assuming the person is happy being homosexual) so no intervention would be required.

(Original post by Asklepios)
If the normal function of the limbic system is to 'find the opposite gender attractive in order to facilitate sexual reproduction,' then surely homosexuality is a disruption to this function?

But surely the fact that heterosexual couples engage in non-reproductive activities is also a "disruption" to this function? Or else the fact that they don't feel an overwhelming urge to have reproductive sex when getting close means that the function isn't purely for reproductive sex?